A church sues Resistance

[Psycho333]

It's just a landmark. You didn't see the US getting in a snarl when you could impale someone on the Washington Monument in Eternal Champions: Challenge from the Dark Side, nor did the Vatican get upset about a gun battle in a fictitious Catholic church in Hitman 2: Silent Assassin.

People need to get the stick out of their ass.

Let's not forget the final fight in Sons of Liberty ((I forgot what it was called but Solidus got impaled on a famous statue))

and in End of Days didnt Arnolds character impale himself in a church ((the church is against suicide))

btw as a side note...in the game your fighting to protect it from Chimerans ((Beastly invaders)) so woudlnt that be a good thing?

and shouldnt they be happy ((Before I heard about the law suit I was considering visiting that place BECAUSE it was in Resistance...more tourism for them))

when will reliigion take it's damn nose out of what happens in video games ((Let's not forget the complaints about DOOM ))

[Herr Mullen]

The universalistic judgement is not appropriate. The Church of England allows a parish autonomy to its churchs: it will be the cathedral itself with the issue, and if they don't want their property to be depicted in a computer game, that's their choice and it's their property and as such they have a right to say when it can and cannot be used in a medium or fashion which the parish has a moral issue against. Besides, not everybody has be welcome mass mediadom with open arms. Some people would prefer that places were not caught up in a value attached by a computer game: that someone would visit a cathedral based on its use in a computer game, rather than its architectural, religous, or historical significance would be to detract from the Cathedral's value in these other respects. If you were a worshipper at a cathedral such as this, you would not want to see a collection of tourists taking photographs of places as they loudly discribe the events that took place there in a computer game. If the church wants attention like this, then it will allow it but if it doesn't it'll sue, and since it's suing we can safely say that this is not the sort of thing Manchester Cathedral wants to be involved in and that's the Cathedral's choice and none of you have any business saying that it's idiotic because it isn't your place to say: you hold no ownership over it or the rights to its image. The churches discribed as being in "End of Days" and "Hitman 2" are both ficticious: therefore, it is not possible for a church to sue because the place does not exist, and you cannot copyright a generic building, otherwise you'd be able to do all kinds of things like copyright the resturant or the cinema, which is just madness. And I daresay people got permission before using the Washington Monument in "Eternal Champions", which is clearly not what the people making this game did before using the image of Manchester Cathedral. Hense, a lawsuit.

[Lover Mama]

As far as I know, you ain't supposed ta be takin pictures inside a church.. If thats different in this one, then whatever.. But, if it is open ta the public like that, then they should expect things like this.. It would be the same as if someone used the highschool here for something like that. People are makin a big deal about it because its a church, not because anyone's rights were violated.

I'd bet that Sony probably did get perrmission to use it in the game, but.. assuming that they have a valid case here, Sony didn't tell them what was ta happen there in it.

[Psycho333]

[quote=Herr Mullen]
The universalistic judgement is not appropriate. The Church of England allows a parish autonomy to its churchs: it will be the cathedral itself with the issue, and if they don't want their property to be depicted in a computer game, that's their choice and it's their property and as such they have a right to say when it can and cannot be used in a medium or fashion which the parish has a moral issue against. Besides, not everybody has be welcome mass mediadom with open arms. Some people would prefer that places were not caught up in a value attached by a computer game: that someone would visit a cathedral based on its use in a computer game, rather than its architectural, religous, or historical significance would be to detract from the Cathedral's value in these other respects. If you were a worshipper at a cathedral such as this, you would not want to see a collection of tourists taking photographs of places as they loudly discribe the events that took place there in a computer game. If the church wants attention like this, then it will allow it but if it doesn't it'll sue, and since it's suing we can safely say that this is not the sort of thing Manchester Cathedral wants to be involved in and that's the Cathedral's choice and none of you have any business saying that it's idiotic because it isn't your place to say: you hold no ownership over it or the rights to its image. The churches discribed

[Wisemon]

If Sony did have permission, and I mean express written consent, not just a verbal agreement, then the church has no case, but otherwise, I think the church does have a case, and I think Herr Mullen makes a very good argument.

[senjuro]

It doesn't sound winnable to me.

Churches seem to have a relatively poor track record of performing well in court, largely because of their penchant of bitching and moaning about every little thing that displeases them. The public is getting sick of hearing about it, the gaming industry is getting sick of having fingers pointed its way, and the courts are getting sick of video game related cases coming through their doors.

If there is a law somewhere written down that explicitly says that one cannot electronically reproduce another structure and use it in a video game as they see fit, then that should far supercede any lack of written consent that the church may or may not have given Sony to use the church's likeness.

Freedom of expression > a church's desire to not be turned into a virtual battleground.

EDIT
===

P.S. When has a game or movie's violence based on realistic locations or scenarios ever gotten it in trouble?

[Wisemon]

The public is getting sick of hearing about it, the gaming industry is getting sick of having fingers pointed its way, and the courts are getting sick of video game related cases coming through their doors.

I agree with the first two, but the judges and lawyers get paid either way, so I don't think they're sick of it.

[Herr Mullen]

Churches seem to have a relatively poor track record of performing well in court, largely because of their penchant of bitching and moaning about every little thing that displeases them. The public is getting sick of hearing about it, the gaming industry is getting sick of having fingers pointed its way, and the courts are getting sick of video game related cases coming through their doors.

If there is a law somewhere written down that explicitly says that one cannot electronically reproduce another structure and use it in a video game as they see fit, then that should far supercede any lack of written consent that the church may or may not have given Sony to use the church's likeness.

Are you basing this on British cases? Neither Candadian or American cases will be citable in a British court of law. And copyright law is applicable in this situation: all the Church has to do is proove it has the original cathedral, and that isn't hard to do. If there is no proof of concent, which none of us are at present privvy to, then the case cannot be won by the computer game. Weather it's ever done any damage to a location is irrelivant: it is the cathedral's decision, and if they don't want their building used as a setting in a game such as that then that is their choice.

[senjuro]

And copyright law is applicable in this situation

Such a copyright will only be effective if it was filed before the game was made.

If there is no proof of concent, which none of us are at present privvy to, then the case cannot be won by the computer game.

I disagree. It seems that the onus should be on the accuser to prove that consent was asked for and refused, rather than on Sony that consent was asked for and received. Proof of refusal should be just as easy to come up with as proof of consent, and if the church was interested in winning the case merely in the press release, that should've been more concretely mentioned. If the church has such a solid case, why is legal action only "considered" and not "ensured"? When it comes down to "He said, She said," I'd take the word of the industry over the word of a group of social alarmists anyday.

Also, it's dissapointing that the church is jumping on the Jack Thompson bandwagon by saying that it's irresponsible of the industry to posit scenarios of gun violence in a city plagued by gun violence, as if there is some kind of correlation between violence of any kind and video games.

[Herr Mullen]

And copyright law is applicable in this situation

Such a copyright will only be effective if it was filed before the game was made.

Copyright law in the UK works even if it isn't filed. It is common practice for artists to burn music on a CD and seal it in an envolope: when in a court battle, all they have to do is open the envolope and check the time stamp. The Cathedral is obviously the intellectual property of the church, as it is the material property, also.

What you are calling for is the reveiw of a legal system you are not a part of. The fact is, it is the church's desision as to weather they allow a games company to make a profit off of their property. Weather you find it dissappointing or not that they aren't endorsing simulated violence on what they concider sacred ground is irrelivant to the legality of the matter. It is the church's property, and what they say goes.